1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to games and puzzles and more particularly to puzzles in which a plurality of pieces are arrayed to achieve desired patterned results.
2. Description of the Prior Art
One type of spatial or visual puzzle is solved by the proper arrangement of pre-selected units to achieve a desired result. For example, the "Chinese Puzzle", in which a number of oddly shaped pieces can be combined in only one way to form a cube or ball or some other regular shape has been known for many centuries. Other examples of spatial puzzles include "Instant Insanity" and "Rubik's Cube".
Several games and puzzles of this type have been the subject of United States Patents. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 2,954,616, issued to D. R. Mogard, discloses a puzzle based learning aid involving the use of a transparent overlay. Similarly, U.S. Pat. No. 4,257,609, issued to R. F. Sqibbs, discloses a puzzle in which individual cubes are arrayed in a manner to provide a composite picture.
Similar devices utilizing individual components to comprise a part of a greater visual whole are disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,308,016, issued to P. A. White and U.S. Pat. No. 2,024,541, issued to E. F. Silkman. A domino related cube puzzle of S. N. Nelson is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,788,645, a colored cube puzzle of F. H. Kopfenstien is described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,189,151, and a rectangular parallelepiped is taught in U.S. Pat. No. 4,210,333, issued to S. R. Shanin. A puzzle similarly utilizing the principle of component arrangement to form a uniform visual result with the addition of back illumination is disclosed by A. M. Rossetti in U.S. Pat. No. 3,451,681.
The difficulty and challenge of a puzzle can be increased when the various individual components have apparent interchangeability since the components have to be actually assembled to test a theoretical solution. The ancient "Chinese Puzzles" do not have any apparent interchangeability since each of the pieces is different in shape. Furthermore, the apparent interchangeability of puzzles such as "Instant Insanity" is limited because there is a visual disparity between the components or various faces of the components. Any physical or visual disparity among the components limits the number of ways in which the components can be logically assembled and thus decreases the degree of challenge to the person attempting to solve the puzzle because certain combinations can be eliminated mentally.
An example of a prior art puzzle which achieves physical component interchangeability but retains visual disparity is disclosed by H. A. Brooks, et al in U.S. Pat. No. 3,510,134. In U.S. Pat. No. 4,258,479 P. A. Roane teaches a puzzle provided with magnets to facilitate the adhesion of similarly shaped components. Roane utilizes color for encryption.
A great number of the prior art puzzles and games provide substantial enjoyment and challenge. However, since it is generally true that the greater number of possible and logical permutations increases the difficulty and frustration, and hence the enjoyment, of the puzzle it is desirable to maximize the permutation possibilities while still leaving the puzzle within the range of solvability.